<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: An ‘unzip’ drive: Defense bar pushing new rules for broader access to prosecutors’ files&#160;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/28/an-unzip-drive-defense-bar-pushing-new-rules-for-broader-access-to-prosecutors-files/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/28/an-unzip-drive-defense-bar-pushing-new-rules-for-broader-access-to-prosecutors-files/</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2013 01:18:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Zwerling</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/28/an-unzip-drive-defense-bar-pushing-new-rules-for-broader-access-to-prosecutors-files/comment-page-1/#comment-31514</link>
		<dc:creator>John Zwerling</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:58:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72203#comment-31514</guid>
		<description>The Commonwealth Attorneys written objections have demonstrated why a system of justice needs to require broad discovery in criminal cases. I accept the fact that a prosecutor will believe that anyone whom they are prosecuting is guilty, but they also must believe that a fair trial is the bedrock of our system. It is troubling when the VACA writes in opposition to expanded discovery &quot; When such a rule becomes favorable to a criminal defendant, it becomes unfair to the society for whom the protective function of the criminal laws is designed.&quot; 
They also assert that since an accused is guilty then any defense is an attempt to fool the tryer of fact and therefore arming them with the facts in the police reports will defeat justice.  
We need the courts to mandate expanded discovery to ensure fair trials and to place the determination of guilt in the hands of the juries and not the Commonwealth Attorneys.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Commonwealth Attorneys written objections have demonstrated why a system of justice needs to require broad discovery in criminal cases. I accept the fact that a prosecutor will believe that anyone whom they are prosecuting is guilty, but they also must believe that a fair trial is the bedrock of our system. It is troubling when the VACA writes in opposition to expanded discovery &#8221; When such a rule becomes favorable to a criminal defendant, it becomes unfair to the society for whom the protective function of the criminal laws is designed.&#8221;<br />
They also assert that since an accused is guilty then any defense is an attempt to fool the tryer of fact and therefore arming them with the facts in the police reports will defeat justice.<br />
We need the courts to mandate expanded discovery to ensure fair trials and to place the determination of guilt in the hands of the juries and not the Commonwealth Attorneys.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
